get_element_attribute

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' conveys read-only intent and the timeoutMs parameter hints at wait behavior, but the description does not state what happens if the element or attribute is missing, whether a default/null is returned, or if any page mutation occurs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single action-first sentence with inline examples and no filler. Every word earns its place and the core operation is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool, the description plus fully documented schema is nearly sufficient. The main gap is the absence of an output schema or explicit note about return/error behavior, but the operation is simple enough that an agent can invoke it correctly with the provided information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'property' terminology and attribute examples, but those largely duplicate the schema's examples and don't clarify selector, strategy, or timeout semantics further.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') with a clear object ('specific attribute or property') and includes concrete examples (href, src, value, class). It clearly communicates what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is implied by the wording—use this when you need an element's attribute value—but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as get_page_content or find_elements. This is adequate but leaves routing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.